
Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage
Multiple answers will be chosen if more than one actor is involved. “Involved” means has knowledge of the event and contributed to the sabotage prior to its happening.
Resolves when there is a clear actor beyond a reasonable doubt.
German authorities issue a European arrest warrant for Zhuravlev
Poland doesn't execute the warrant; instead warns Zhuravlev
He flees to Ukraine
Donald Tusk says something on Twitter about how Nord Stream was a bad idea from the start
I think this is pretty clear?
Currently all the evidence points to Zhuravlev, even if the us was involved it would never come to light before market resolution. So I don’t understand the current prices here.
According to leaked documents posted online, the U.S. had information that Ukraine was planning to attack the Baltic Sea gas links three months before the explosions, the Washington Post reported last year.
(from the Politico article in the oldest comment)
currently it is unclear whether it was „Ukraine“ as in Selensky approved it or if it was just a private endeavor by some private citizens of Ukraine. That is the reason why I didn’t buy Ukraine YES
@Philip3773733 From the description:
“Involved” means has knowledge of the event and contributed to the sabotage prior to its happening.
Which I had interpreted as meaning either had knowledge, or contributed. But I'm not sure if that's what was intended.
Can you clarify, @wglane ?
@MateuszSkrzypek why would you add this answer when both Poland and Ukraine are represented and multiple answers can resolve "yes"?
@MateuszSkrzypek "Multiple answers will be chosen if more than one actor is involved"
Poland and Ukraine are already there
Yet the probability that they BOTH are involved cannot be deduced from their personal probabilities, so this option is reasonable. (It could only be deduced by multiplication if it was a known fact, that both options are independent.)
Don't know who added a person instead of a state/institution but: